galanter wrote:If the question is "Did George Bush make the right decision regarding Iraq" I would have to consider his intentions.
If the question is "Was invading Iraq the right thing to do?" then I would have to consider whether there was any way such an action could be justified by anyone.
Bush haters want to focus on the first, and I understand that.
No, people concerned about the situation who want to look at the actions of its principle players focus on the first. That doesn't mean they all have a knee jerk everything-Bush-does-is evil standpoint which is what I think you are implying with that.
galanter wrote:I'm talking about the second question, and I wish that was better understood.
The second question is inseparable from the first. If you re worded it to 'could an invasion of Iraq ever have been justified by anyone?' then yuo might be getting somewhere. But the question is 'was invading Iraq the right thing to do?' You are taking about the invasion of Iraq that did take place - not one that might have.
Pre-war people would use the 'but getting rid of Saddam is a good thing' argument and I would agree. But then I would point out who was leading the battle cry on his removal (by which I mean America - not Bush alone) and so all I could see was bad things happening.
Therefore it was not a good idea to support the Americans war. Certainly given that we were the fucking British supporting the Americans. You could not pick two worse countries to undertake an invasion of that country except, maybe, Israel and Iran.
galanter wrote:In terms of an ethical analysis, or simply learning a lesson that goes beyond the critique of a single (admittedly powerful) man, the second is more important.
Yes, if what you mean is as a discussion of moral dilemmas the second is more interesting, I agree.
In a discussion about what actually happened and is happening though the second is inseparable from the first.
I thought we were talking about what actually happened and is happening. You really are dancing around this.
If you are saying this then we agree:
There may have been circumstances in which someone could have violently removed Saddam from his position of power in Iraq which would not have led to the total break down of an entire country and the deaths and displacement of millions.
I could accept that statement. But your statement sounds to me like:
There may have been circumstances in which someone could have violently removed Saddam from his position of power in Iraq which would not have led to the total break down of an entire country and the deaths and displacement of millions.
Therefore our invasion was still the right thing to do.It doesn't work because we weren't in those hypothetical circumstances and we weren't those right countries/people.
galanter wrote:If the Iraqi people had to have a brutal civil war before they could pass into a brighter future, better to get it over with sooner than later.
This justification is just disturbed Galanter.
Is this not similar to saying 'well, everyone's gonna die someday do what difference does it make if we do the killing?'
And it should be pointed out that the last i heard there is still more violence aimed at the occupiers than they aim at each other - though you wouldn't believe it from the mainstream press.
And Bear, what's the score? Have you really changed your opinion cause Rick is annoying you or did you just read some other book or something? Or have you not changed your opinion?
There's a space next to me on the generally undecided fence if you want to come and sit on it.
